I've been doing this series of posts on my blog about Indian classical music, and, to a certain extent focusing a bit on the South Indian (Carnatic) classical style of music since it is the system in which I was originally trained (though I earned a music theory degree later on).

While the latter parts have been topical rants railing off on certain peeves about the music community at large, the first two were almost entirely dedicated to educating those unfamiliar with the system of music in some basics and how it is different from what the layman generally knows about Indian classical music. At least to the extent that they have some idea where I'm coming from with the two rants (which are more generically rationalist points of view, where the first two were meant to set a frame of reference).

Anyway, aside from putting in a shameless plug, the main thing I'd like to get some critiques about is just how well I established that foundation to the effect that people with otherwise no knowledge of Indian music would know what I'm talking about by the time they get to part 3 and 4. For someone like me, who has a strong enough background in the field, it's a little hard to see the gaps because it's all second nature.

Yahweh can't possibly get tenure --He has only one major publication. It has no credits and no references, and was not published in a peer-reviewed journal. He used human test subjects, many of which he killed, without ethics committee approval.